Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. Connor Group
725 F.3d 571
6th Cir.2013Background
- Miami Valley Fair Housing Center sued Connor Group for alleged FHA §3604(c) and Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02(H)(7) violations based on a Craigslist ad soliciting a single man.
- The ad described a 'great bachelor pad for any single man looking to hook up' for a Dayton-area one-bedroom apartment.
- Trial led to a jury verdict in favor of Connor Group; Miami Valley challenged via Rule 50 directed verdict and Rule 59 new-trial motions; Connor sought attorney’s fees.
- The district court denied both sides’ post-trial motions and relied on Metropolitan Milwaukee for jury instructions.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviews standing, Rule 50, jury instructions, Ohio statute application, and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under FHA | Miami Valley has Article III injury (resource drain). | Standing requires concrete injury tied to conduct; adequate here. | Miami Valley has standing. |
| FHA §3604(c) violation as a matter of law | Ad indicates a preference against protected classes. | Ad not facially discriminatory; any inference is for jury. | No directed-verdict violation; ad not as a matter of law discriminatory. |
| Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02(H)(7) violation | Statute covers any 'preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination' including ads. | Ohio statute mirrors FHA but broader; interpretation uncertain. | Ad does not violate Ohio statute as a matter of law. |
| Jury instructions—ordinary-reader standard | District court correctly stated ordinary-reader standard per FHA law. | Instructions improperly imported Metropolitan Milwaukee standard. | Instructions were erroneous and prejudicial; reversal warranted. |
| Attorney’s fees award | Fees should be awarded to prevailing party if warranted. | No abuse of discretion; case not frivolous; no hearing required. | No abuse; affirm denial of attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (standing and concrete injury from resource drain)
- Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 943 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1991) (ordinary-reader standard; discrimination analysis)
- Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (standing and enforcement-related injury)
- Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1991) (ordinary-reader concept in FHA analysis)
- Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 6 F.3d 898 (2d Cir. 1993) (discourage vs. prefer language discussion)
- Jancik v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 44 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 1995) (ordinary-reader approach; discourage language rejected)
- Metro Milwaukee Fair Housing Council v. Labor & Industry Review Comm'n, 496 N.W.2d 159 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992) (Wisconsin open housing act; cited for jury instruction approach)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (credibility and inferences are jury functions)
- United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205 (4th Cir. 1972) (discourage/preference discussion in FHA context)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for reversing based on erroneous instructions)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 765 (2d Cir. 1998) (extreme sanction standard for fees in civil rights)